14.8.12

Is it Anti-Semitic to call it Apartheid?

Jonathan Ben-Artzi, a mathematician at Cambridge University, refusenik, and nephew of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argues in an interview in favour of classifying Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians as apartheid.

You studied at Brown University. I’m sure you’re familiar with our political discourse here in the United States. Comparing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians with apartheid in South Africa inevitably invites charges of anti-Semitism and extremism.

It has always seemed like a correct analogy to me, in that Israel is facing demographic pressures, and has set up a quasi state with no real sovereignty. They’re pretending that that quasi state is in fact independent. In apartheid South Africa these were called Bantustans.

[Update: My thanks to Ohad Kammar for pointing out I misread the above: the second paragraph is not Ben-Artzi's answer, but part of the interviewer's question, which makes the view expressed of considerably less interest. My apologies for the error.]

Without haven't looked at the context (in the interview), and without even taking a stand on the content, the logical flow of the implied conclusion here seems dubious:

Assume I were to buy that

a) Israel creates Bantustans

and given the fact that

b) Apartheid-time South Africa created Bantustans

How does this imply Israel is an Apartheid-state?

That would only be logically plausible if instead of b) we had

b') What defined South Africa as an Apartheid-state was that it created Bantustans.

Doesn't seem right to me. The Bantustans were one aspect of South African policy. Even without them, South African policy was one of Apartheid, and in fact I don't see that "setting up a quasi state with no real sovereignity under demographic pressure" is a sufficient condition for "Apartheid".

But is it anti-semitic? I don't see why it would be. Extremist? Possibly - the only reason to label it "apartheid", regardless of the realities, is as a provocation. So I don't see it as very constructive.

"Anti-Semitic" is a silly word, since both Israelis and Palestinians are Semites. Why not just call it "anti-Israel"?

Saying that something is "like the Apartheid" is also silly, since it assumes that the Apartheid is necessarily evil. Personally, I do not like to talk to people who preemptively divide the world into what is "good" and what is "evil". It poisons the well.

If the British had not meddled with Boer affairs in the 19th century, would the Apartheid ever have happened? Probably not.

A slight correction is due, especially in light of Janis's comment about possible inference invalidity:

The quote, in its entirety, is from the interviewer (Joshua Holland). The fonts might make it seem that it's in Q&A format. However, this part was only said by the interviewer. You can see this if you follow the link, and verify it if you listen to the podcast.

Jonathan Ben Artzi never actually says directly in this piece that Israel is an Apartheid state, let alone deduces this claim using the problematic reasoning.

However, he also doesn't object to it being called an Apartheid state.

@Anonymous0: Just as criticism, provocation can be either constructive or destructive.

@stochastix: Or yet a better term would be "Anti-Zionism". I also avoid talking to people who preemptively divide the world into what is "good" and what is "evil", however, where a moral analysis might be uninteresting, an ethical analysis most probably is not.

An often neglected fact is that Israel's measures to separate itself are in essence motivated by recurring attacks on Israeli civilians. I don't think it makes sense to ignore the context and make improper analogies to a completely different situation.

@Anonymous, about confusing analogy with implication: I took the supposed "argument in favour of classifying Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians as apartheid" to go as follows:

Since Israel does A, which is anlogous to B that South Africa did, Israel is an apartheid state as South Africa was.

Even if one were to buy the analogy of A and B, this still seems an invalid implication to me. Certainly in that polymorphic form, since the validity clearly depends on what exactly B is (otherwise could set A=B="putting a tax on imports and exports of cars"). That's what bothered me on the language/logic level, and I indeed doubted that the B used in the specific argument was one that allows to draw the conclusion intended by the speaker.

BTW, I'm with N. Lewis that the specific A and B put forward here are not really analogous, but that doesn't even factor into my "logical flow complaint".

Dear Philip, please take note of Ohad's correction above, which in my opinion is a lot more than just "slight". You may want to change the headline to a less misleading "Bibi's nephew is being asked a loaded question", or just take the post down altogether.

@N. Lewis: An often neglected fact is that recurring attacks on Israeli civilians are in essence motivated by Israel's measures to separate itself which, incidentally, are based on recurring attacks on Palestinian civilians. Gosh! there is a conflict there!

@N. Lewis: That's partially true (incomplete description of reality) and partially conveniently crafted propaganda. As in any human interaction the reality is a rather complex phenomenon and it almost never gets easily reduced to the simplistic "It's that he hates me, I'm innocent".

My thanks to Ohad Kammar for pointing out I misread the above: the second paragraph is not Ben-Artzi's answer, but part of the interviewer's question, which makes the view expressed of considerably less interest. My apologies for the error.

Ohad, I had noticed that the answer was also in bold, but assumed this was an error, as it made no sense for the interviewer to answer his own question. I hadn't seen there was audio to check. Many thanks for setting me straight.

Philip, I agree whole heartedly that reality is complex, and can't easily be reduced to black and white. I made an exaggerated claim (maybe some attacks on Israeli civilians were motivated by other causes.) Exactly that argument should be applied also when considering to brand Israel as an "apartheid state"

@Philip: Thank you for considering Ohad's correction. I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism. It is so easy that almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, can scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic. If a Gentile were to state the same, how long would it take before she was classified as Anti-Semitic if not worse?

More on these reflections can be found on Gilad Atzmon's web site. Writings such asOn Blindness or On Anti-Semitism are indeed related with those issues. The independent documentary by Ronen Berelovich, The Zionist Story, might also be worth watching it.

well, I'd have to agree with the previous comment in as far as: if a first hand encounter with totally unrestrained, unapologetic anti-semitism is what you're looking for, there's hardly a better place to go to than Gilad Atzmon's "reflections"...

@Anonymous, claiming "the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism": Would you care to elaborate? Which "it" here does "clearly show" that criticism of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism? I don't see any such "it" resp. such evidence anywhere (post or comments) above. There is only the *assertion* (without evidence) by the interviewer that "Comparing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians with apartheid in South Africa inevitably invites charges of anti-Semitism and extremism."

That the interviewer claims so, and that you repeat that claim, does not mean that anything is "clearly shown". Or what am I missing?

Do you claim that the interviewer himself confuses criticism of Israel with Anti-Semitism? Or do you see any actual indication in post/interview/comments "that almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, can scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic" as you claim?

@Janis Voigtländer: First of all a small correction, I should have written this:

"I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel *might* get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

Where "it" is obviuosly the "issue", i.e. the interviewer's quoted text, and where I used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests" and not "proves". I'm sorry for the lack of hue, I wrongly assumed a word to the wise is sufficient. I'm not trying to prove anything, are you?

For this suggestion to make sense the first paragraph of the interviewer's question is more than enough as it is the title of this post.

I don't think it is a matter of hue or nuances or a small correction. There's a huge difference in meaning between:

"The interviewer's text clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

and:

"The interviewer's text clearly suggests how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

Unless you indeed meant to use the interviewer himself as an example of one such confused. Which would seem very misguided, since clearly the interviewer is of the opposite opinion, and instead accuses others ("political discourse here in the US") of such (possibly deliberate) confusion.

Plus, you yourself claimed that "almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, can scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic", implying that someone is trying to classify Jonathan Ben-Artzi as Anti-Semitic. Who, I ask you?

Dear Janis, yes, I do think that it is indeed a matter of a small correction and hue. Besides, of course, being part of your little personal obfuscation about strict correctness, surprisingly enough, more on other's texts than on your own ones.

The only correction in my latest text was *might*, as you can see here:

"I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel *might* get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

Where, explicitly, I had not changed the word "shows", as I consider it is only a matter of hue. The meaning of "shows" refers to allowing something to be visible. Valid alternatives for the intended meaning of allowing something to be visible in this context are "illustrates", "exemplifies" and, of course, "suggests" (as opposed to "proves" which you gratuitously introduced). But this was only for your understanding, so please, do not manipulate my texts.

About this:

"Unless you indeed meant to use the interviewer himself as an example of one such confused. Which would seem very misguided, since clearly the interviewer is of the opposite opinion, and instead accuses others ("political discourse here in the US") of such (possibly deliberate) confusion."

Are you always imagining "logical flow"s of things and preemptively stating bogus hypothesis just to prove your stubborn point?

This hypothesis of yours is indeed completely bogus, as, obviously, it is not the interviewer's quoted text itself what suggests anything but the context he refers to in that text.

Again, as a special clarification for you only, Janis, what I've written and its context could be re-sequenced as follows.

- After Philip wrote:

"My thanks to Ohad Kammar for pointing out I misread the above: the second paragraph is not Ben-Artzi's answer, but part of the interviewer's question, which makes the view expressed of considerably less interest."

- I wanted to point out that:

"however, the context referred to by the interviewer in its quoted text is still very interesting, as it clearly illustrates how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

- To this, I added:

"It is so easy that almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, can scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic."

And, again, this last statement should have been written as:

"It *might be* so easy that almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, *could* scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic."

Related to this latest "claim" of mine, which seems to be taking your sleep away, sorry about that, you seem to be wondering who I may be implying that is trying to classify Jonathan Ben-Artzi as Anti-Semitic. Guess who? YOU! :) just plain joking. Seriously, it is as simple as this: what I wrote in that text is just related to what could happen to Jonathan Ben-Artzi in the context referred to by the interviewer in its quoted text. That statement was also related to the question that follows it as well as to the links in the paragraph bellow it.

Does it compile for you? I'd bet it does not...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~Albert Einstein

1. I'm not sure what exactly you mean to say when referring to "[my] little personal obfuscation about strict correctness, surprisingly enough, more on other's texts than on [my] own ones". Maybe you mean to indicate that I do not apply the same rigour and precision to my own texts as I look for in others'. I am sure that this is something that does happen. But since I have no idea whether you know anything I have ever said or written other than in the exchange above, maybe you have something specific in mind where you think I have slipped up in the comments above. Care to enlighten and correct me?

2. I didn't intend to manipulate your text. In fact, I didn't claim that you literally said

A: "The interviewer's text clearly suggests how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

I think it is accurate to say that you said (on second round)

B: "The interviewer's text clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

(where my only change from what you literally said is the replacement of "The interviewer's text" for "it", but that's the substitution you explained you intended for "it")

Below that B, you explained that you intended "shows" to mean "suggests", so I thought it absolutely apt to compare A (not B) to your original statement. I don't see why you call this a manipulation of your text.

So compared to your original statement, a "gets" turned into a "might get", and a "shows" turned into a "suggests". You may consider such changes just a matter of hue, I don't.

3. I didn't put up "Unless you indeed meant to use the interviewer himself as an example of one such confused." as a bogus hypothesis ("to prove [my] stubborn point"; which is?). I genuinely wasn't sure whether or not you considered the interviewer to be "one such confused" (in my words).

4. I think that (paraphrased:) "When one criticizes Israel, one almost automatically gets labelled as Anti-Semitic" is a strawman (to make the critic look especially bold and brave, since "still" criticizing Israel despite that risk). Granted, I may be wrong in the context of the US political discourse, since I don't know that discourse well enough. I do know the German political discourse, and in that context, I have seen that strawman put up repeatedly, and there I'm pretty confident it is just a strawman. Anyway, my impression was that the interviewer here puts up a strawman. You instead seemed to see life in that strawman (i.e., a real rather than only a purported risk), so I asked you for any indication of why you think that said statement holds. Instead of providing any, you retreated into vagueness ("gets" becomes "might get", and "shows" becomes "suggests").

5. About your "special clarification for [me] only", which consists of rephrasing your other original statement:

"It is so easy that almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, can scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic."

into:

"It *might be* so easy that almost not even a Semitic Jew such as Jonathan Ben-Artzi, who is critic with the state of Israel, *could* scape from being classified as Anti-Semitic."

This looks to me like the same pattern as observed above:

- You first state something as if it were a fact, or actually happening.- I ask for indication for why you think it holds true as a fact, or is actually happening.- In response, you change the statement into a more vague form ("gets" becomes "might get", and "shows" becomes "suggests", and now here "is" becomes "might be" and "can [not] scape" becomes "could [not] scape" [in whatever eventuality]).

Well, what more can I say then?

6. The Einstein quote you give is nice, but actually I would rather not apply it too freely. I like to (try to) apply precision to the real world, and to see it applied in political debate. I think it is important to distinguish between what one asserts "is" the case and what one thinks "might be" the case. Maybe I am odd. I'm sorry I bothered you.

1. I'm not sure what exactly you mean to say when referring to "[my] little personal obfuscation about strict correctness, surprisingly enough, more on other's texts than on [my] own ones". Maybe you mean to indicate that I do not apply the same rigour and precision to my own texts as I look for in others'. I am sure that this is something that does happen. But since I have no idea whether you know anything I have ever said or written other than in the exchange above, maybe you have something specific in mind where you think I have slipped up in the comments above. Care to enlighten and correct me?

I will along these lines...

2. I didn't intend to manipulate your text.

I have not claimed manipulation was your intention, only your effect.

In fact, I didn't claim that you literally said

A: "The interviewer's text clearly suggests how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

You did not claimed that openly, however, you quoted it as any other cited quotations along these comments, besides, the texts you wrote are likely to be confused with the texts I wrote. Definitely, you have not been careful enough, for sure, not up to the expectations you put on others. In essence, you have not bothered to be so rigorous and precise as you expect the others to be.

I think it is accurate to say that you said (on second round)

B: "The interviewer's text clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

No it is not accurate, I have not written that text anywhere. You should not have used it as a citation of any of my texts.

(where my only change from what you literally said is the replacement of "The interviewer's text" for "it", but that's the substitution you explained you intended for "it")

I have not explained "The interviewer's text" is the substitution for "it" anywhere, I just pointed out that the "issue" was what was on the interviewer's text. So again, you have gratuitously replaced "it" for "The interviewer's text" and disrespectfully claimed that was my intention. With this automatic (uncommon sense) replacement you seem to have missed the fact that I was referring to the context the interviewer refers to in that text, which, by the way, is rather obvious unless you are a robot. You may argue that fact was not explicitly stated, yes, but instead of asking me whether that possible replacement was acceptable (considering my intended meaning) you, again, gratuitously and disrespectfully opted for what was most convenient to your argumentation (plain straw man). This procedure becomes most insulting when the logical consequence ends up being utterly absurd (as you yourself noted by using the word "misguided").

Below that B, you explained that you intended "shows" to mean "suggests", so I thought it absolutely apt to compare A (not B) to your original statement.

"I thought"?... Janis, you mostly assume and replace, you barely seem to think. As I have already clarified you, "suggests" was introduced in that context in opposition to "proves", besides, "suggests" was never presented as necessary and sufficient for "shows". The careful assumption would have been to consider "suggests" no more than necessary for "shows". And Janis, having been the first commenting about these matters in this post you should not have been so careless. Wait! perhaps being so was most convenient to your argumentation (plain straw man).

I don't see why you call this a manipulation of your text.

Oh! now that you mention, I do not see any gratuitous nor disrespectful text alteration anywhere either.

So compared to your original statement, a "gets" turned into a "might get", and a "shows" turned into a "suggests". You may consider such changes just a matter of hue, I don't.

Why do you stubbornly keep on confusing the correction with the hue? Wait! perhaps being so is most convenient to your argumentation (plain straw man). Or wait! perhaps you just do not get it... hopefully you will get it this time.

Related to the correction ("gets" into "might get") and its size, I will say the following.

The original text was:

"I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

The expected interpretation is:

"I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel *usually* gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

Where the interpreted *usually* (obviously omitted in the original text) would invite one to think about it as a statistical universal statement (these things happen on a certain frequency).

The unexpected interpretation is:

"I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting as it clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel *necessarily* gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

Where the interpreted *necessarily* (obviously omitted in the original text) would invite one to think about it as an absolute universal statement (these things happen always no matter what).

In light of this, I considered that 1/ assuming a word to the wise is sufficient (wrongly assumed for you) and the given semantic context (*some* and *easily*, note that "some easily others not"), there was no need for any correction, that is why the correction is small 2/ however, an acceptable, although redundant, way to avoid the unexpected interpretation was to turn *gets* into *might get* (it is needless to say it would have been enough to turn *gets* into *may get*).

Related to the hue ("suggests" as a hue of "shows"), I will say the following. The intended meaning of "shows" in this context has several hues: "illustrates", "exemplifies" and, of course, "suggests" (always as opposed to "proves"). None of them wholly captures the meaning of "shows", therefore none of them is an acceptable replacement of "shows".

The recurring pattern here is that you concentrate yourself more on what has been written rather than on what was the intended meaning. It seems as if, above all, you need to prove your actions as justified and correct while ignoring the effective communication which for you it remains completely unimportant. This way, Janis, the conversation with you becomes cumbersome, time consuming and particularly rather pointless -- and your attitude most insulting.

3. I didn't put up "Unless you indeed meant to use the interviewer himself as an example of one such confused." as a bogus hypothesis ("to prove [my] stubborn point"; which is?). I genuinely wasn't sure whether or not you considered the interviewer to be "one such confused" (in my words).

Generally, your point is to prove how you have been rigorous and precise while others have not. In this particular context your point was, OBVIOUSLY, to prove that there was a huge difference in meaning between:

"The interviewer's text clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

and:

"The interviewer's text clearly suggests how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

Where these sentences are, again, misrepresentations of my position.

Wikipedia introduces the article about a straw man by saying that a straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. What have you been doing all along if not that? Gosh! you seem so cynical!

4. I think that (paraphrased:) "When one criticizes Israel, one almost automatically gets labelled as Anti-Semitic" is a strawman (to make the critic look especially bold and brave, since "still" criticizing Israel despite that risk).

The quoted statement could or could not be a straw man. Basing such judgment solely on the kind of statement, as you do, obviously indicates the presence of a prejudice.

Granted, I may be wrong in the context of the US political discourse, since I don't know that discourse well enough. I do know the German political discourse, and in that context, I have seen that strawman put up repeatedly, and there I'm pretty confident it is just a strawman.

How can you aspire to be "right" or "wrong" in matters related to politics without specifying a particular purpose in space and time? Presumably, you are "right" in the context of the German political discourse hence the quoted sentence is always a straw man there. On the other hand, you state you are pretty confident that the quoted sentence is just a straw man there, since you have seen it put up repeatedly. Both statements are logically incompatible unless you confuse absolute statements with statistical statements, as it seems you do. It does not surprise me you had such a hard time understanding the intended statistical meaning of my statement.

Anyway, my impression was that the interviewer here puts up a strawman.

What is the value of such biased impression? None to me. Besides, you project your perceived confidence about it in Germany on to the US, based on what?

You instead seemed to see life in that strawman (i.e., a real rather than only a purported risk), so I asked you for any indication of why you think that said statement holds.

You offer no more than your confidence and (biased) impression about it in Germany and inquire me for evidence in general? WTF? Such a moronically arrogant attitude!

Ha! the evidence was right in front of your eyes just before you posted your comment on the 17/8/12 at 5:12 AM. Yes, I am referring to the comment posted by other Anonymous, right after mine, on the 16/8/12 at 5:59 PM. I will not develop this further, I have had enough of your charming conversation.

I have mentioned it before but you conveniently keep on ignoring it, for the record I will repeat it again: on my attitude there was not any pretension to prove anything, I was solely expressing my "impression" on that matter, just like you do.

Speaking of straw man... your first comment posted on the 14/8/12 at 1:38 PM faithfully reproduces the structure of a straw man argument. And you know what? As above, I will not develop this further.

5. About your "special clarification for [me] only", which consists of rephrasing your other original statement:

... snipped ...

Well, what more can I say then?

All your argumentation already speaks for itself.

6. The Einstein quote you give is nice, but actually I would rather not apply it too freely. I like to (try to) apply precision to the real world, and to see it applied in political debate.

Well, I am sorry but my "impression" is you have failed miserably. Regarding this, you have shown us a couple of things here. On one hand, you have shown us a significant bias when having to choose among several possible interpretations. On the other hand, you have shown us your arrogance about the use of the English language by assuming and not asking what the intended meaning was.

I think it is important to distinguish between what one asserts "is" the case and what one thinks "might be" the case.

Yes, exactly! I am sorry but my "impression" is you have failed here miserably as well. Regarding this, you have shown us your limited ability to distinguish "absolute" from "statistical" universals out of the semantic context.

It is not a matter of being down or up. I do not think that expressing my opinion about your argumentative attitude is more insulting than your (willingly or unwillingly) distorting my arguments. I was explicit; you were implicit.

There is much to say in response to the various accusations from yourposts on the 23rd, but I think I will refrain. Let me just do for thepoint from the first of those posts, about my supposed manipulation ofyour text, as a result of which you feel (implicitly) insulted.

You claimed that my representing, in my post of the 20th, yourpreviously expressed position as:

"The interviewer's text clearly shows how some criticism of the state ofIsrael might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

was a gratuitous and disrespectful text alteration.

Let's see. You had written:

"I'd like to add, however, that the issue is still very interesting asit clearly shows how some criticism of the state of Israel gets easilyconfused with Anti-Semitism."

I then asked you which "it" you mean. I could have equivalently askedwhich "the issue" you mean, since "it" refers to "the issue" within thatsentence. You clearly read that the same way. Your answer was:

"Where "it" is obviuosly the "issue", i.e. the interviewer's quotedtext, [...]" (where the here omitted part concerns the "shows" and the"gets", not the "it"/"issue")

So how is

"The interviewer's text clearly shows how some criticism of the state ofIsrael might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

a somehow malicious misrepresentation of what you expressed? It's not. Ihad asked you a direct question and took your answer to mean what itsaid. (What went missing in my reformulation was the "quoted" from"quoted text", but that's no relevant change of meaning in the contexthere, is it? The other change, "gets" -> "might get", was directly fromyour own post as well.)

You write in your post on the 23rd that the change from "it" to "Theinterviewer's text" was not your intention at all, and that I could haveinferred that from the context, and if not able to do so should haveasked you for disambiguation. Which ambiguity? Even now, with your longexplicit discussion of the context of your above answer (a context I hadbeen aware of), you seem to arrive at something like:

The only possible ambiguity I can see (and you have not touched on adifferent one) is about whether the interviewer himself was about to beused as an example of a person confusing criticism of Israel withAnti-Semitism. And that's the possible ambiguity that I did point out inmy post on the 18th (and before), and did make clear that I don'tconsider that a common sense reading (and you agree). In the absence ofthat kind of reading (of potentially the interviewer himself beingconsidered "one such confused"), I *still* don't see ameaning-distorting difference between

That is unsettling, since you seem to consider the "The interviewer'stext clearly shows ..." so way off from your actually intended meaning.How that is, I don't see. Maybe you read something into it that I don'tsee and mean.

There is also the other aspect in your first post of 23rd, objecting to my

"you explained that you intended "shows" to mean "suggests", so Ithought it absolutely apt to ..."

You claim that in fact I didn't think, instead just assumed, and assumedwrongly. How is that?

I should actually have written

"you explained that you intended "shows" to mean "suggests", so it wasabsolutely apt to ..."

Because there is no assumption at all, but just a fact. You seem to denythat fact now. You do say now that

""suggests" was never presented as necessary and sufficient for "shows""

But you had previously written (fact!) that you

"used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests" and not "proves""

How does that *not* say that "shows" can be replaced with "suggests" inyour statement without changing your intended meaning? If by "necessaryand sufficient" vs. "no more than necessary" you mean the differencebetween equivalence and subsumption of concepts, then your just quotedstatement that in what you said you expected "shows" to mean "suggests"(i.e., the two to have equivalent meaning in that context) clearlycontradicts your later statement that you never meant it that way andthat instead I made it up.

So you seem to deny the fact that you yourself had brought "suggests"into play as what you meant with "shows", and claim that myconsideration of your statement with "suggests" replaced for "shows" wasa distortion (supposedly to be misused for the sake of my argument).That claim is baseless, given the above factuality. And it is not amatter of context either, because you expressed that in the givencontext you used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests". I am ata loss about why you claim I misrepresented your position here (again).

Ah yes, sorry. Actually I hope we are not having a war here. But yes, myhand is extended.

In any case, at the very least we can try to not fill your blog page adinfinitum. For further discussion I am sure Anonymous can find out myemail address and use/setup an anonymous email account if desired.

But how is that of a different meaning from the "The interviewer's text clearly shows ..." rendering?

That is unsettling, since you seem to consider the "The interviewer's text clearly shows ..." so way off from your actually intended meaning. How that is, I don't see. Maybe you read something into it that I don't see and mean.

Janis, I would have accepted the replacement of "it" for "The interviewer's text" as long as you would not have written "Unless you indeed meant to use the interviewer himself as an example of one such confused." just to prove your point. The culprit is not the substitution itself but its contextual implications.

Yes, although you do not seem to see it now, the structure you wrote in your comment on the 18th was the following.

"There's a huge difference in meaning between:

A

and:

B

Unless you indeed meant to use the interviewer himself as an example of one such confused." (which ends up being an utterly absurd consideration).

When you manipulate my texts your attitude is (willingly or unwillingly) insulting. Pretending to prove some "huge difference" in meaning between A and B with such a bogus consideration is when your attitude becomes (willingly or unwillingly) most insulting.

There is also the other aspect in your first post of 23rd, objecting to my

... snipped ...

Because there is no assumption at all,

Yes, in fact there are many assumptions.

but just a fact.

If you carefully consider the time line and the context, there is no valid fact for your claim.

You seem to deny that fact now.

Now?

Let us see:

---

In your comment on the 17th is where you wrongly assumed that the correct interpretation of "shows" was "proves", so you wrote:

"Which "it" here does "clearly show" that criticism of Israel gets easily confused with Anti-Semitism? I don't see any such "it" resp. such evidence anywhere (post or comments) above."

while looking for some evidence that would "prove" what I had stated.

And it was in the same context (context is important!), in my comment on the 17th (just a few hours later), where I wrote:

"I used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests" and not "proves"."

and clarified that I was not trying to prove anything.

Obviously, when I emphasized the intended meaning of "suggests" versus "proves", which you had already wrongly assumed, it was biased toward that context.

---

In your comment on the 18th is where you wrongly assumed that my clarification about the hue was also a correction of my text, so you pretended to prove that this text:

"The interviewer's text clearly suggests how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism."

was very different from my original text, while neglecting the fact that I, explicitly, had stated the differences between the small correction and the lack of hue. You put it all in the same bag, of course, based on your linguistic criteria.

And it was back then (not now!), in my post on the 18th (also a few hours later) where I clarified that I, explicitly, had not replaced "shows" for "suggests" as it was just a valid feature among others. I also stated that it was a special clarification to counterbalance your misguided interpretation ("shows" as "proves"). The fact that I did not mind to clarify your misguided interpretation of "shows" as "proves" does not allow you to edit my text, replace "shows" for "suggests" and use it to prove that "it is not a matter of hue or small correction" based on some "huge differences". Huge differences between my text and a text you have put-up (as you admitted when you later wrote you "didn't claim that [I] literally said" your put-up text).

The series of your comments that came next (on the 20th) should not have been written. In these comments you kept anchoring on what I had written in my early comment on the 17th. These all seem just a manifestation of your wounded pride.

For example, in the second point of that comment of yours you elusively wrote:

"2. I didn't intend to manipulate your text. In fact, I didn't claim that you literally said

A: "The interviewer's text clearly suggests how some criticism of the state of Israel might get easily confused with Anti-Semitism.""

A little later, in reference to what I had written in the third paragraph of my comment on the 17th, you wrote:

"Below that B, you explained that you intended "shows" to mean "suggests", so I thought it absolutely apt to compare A (not B) to your original statement. I don't see why you call this a manipulation of your text."

Here, you tried to justify why you thought it absolutely apt to compare "A" to my original statement (i.e. just what you did in your comment on the 18th). Why is it so important for you to justify your statements in that earlier comment? Wounded pride? At that current point, I had already clarified you about the other valid features of "shows" plus that it was a special clarification for you only.

In the next paragraph you wrote:

"So compared to your original statement, a "gets" turned into a "might get", and a "shows" turned into a "suggests". You may consider such changes just a matter of hue, I don't."

Here, as if that were not enough, you go back and try to make the point you stated in your comment on the 18th, while 1/ completely neglecting what I had already answered about it in my subsequent comment on the 18th and 2/ insisting on assuming your interpretation plus changing my representation.

---

Wrapping-up, I have seen quite a few wrong assumptions, persistent neglect of my clarifications starting back in the early comments (not now!) and a lot of wounded pride in your argumentation.

You do say now that ""suggests" was never presented as necessary and sufficient for "shows"". But you had previously written (fact!) that you "used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests" and not "proves"".

The first appearance of "suggests" was in my comment on the 17th. In that context you were assuming "shows" as "proves" and I introduced it just to counterbalance your wrong assumption. In that context it was not presented as necessary and sufficient for "shows". The only fact is that I *did* replace "gets" for "might get" (correction) and I *did not* replace "shows" for "suggests" (hue). For if there was any doubt about it, in my comment on the 18th, I clarified you about the other valid hues of "shows" plus that the clarification was intended as special for you only, that is, I explicitly rejected the validity of replacing "shows" for "suggests".

How does that *not* say that "shows" can be replaced with "suggests" in your statement without changing your intended meaning? If by "necessary and sufficient" vs. "no more than necessary" you mean the difference between equivalence and subsumption of concepts, then your just quoted statement that in what you said you expected "shows" to mean "suggests" (i.e., the two to have equivalent meaning in that context) clearly contradicts your later statement that you never meant it that way and that instead I made it up.

You cannot pretend that my quoted statement is complete without its companion context. It is not. I would not have introduced "suggests" as a hue of "shows" if you would not have wrongly assumed "proves" as the expected meaning of "shows" in the first place. There is no contradiction at all, my quoted statement written on the 17th does not contradict the one written on the 18th nor my later statement written on the 23rd. They *all explicitly exclude* "suggests" as a replacement for "shows".

All your argumentation depends on proving that at some point I presented "suggests" as necessary and sufficient for "shows". All you have to offer is when I wrote "where I used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests" and not "proves"." in reference to the relevant text. By quoting only that sentence you seem to deliberately be missing an important part of the context where I qualify "suggests" as a (due) hue of "shows". The fact that I qualified "suggests" as a hue of "shows" from the very beginning proves that "suggests" was never presented as necessary and sufficient for "shows", otherwise I would not have called it a hue.

So you seem to deny the fact that you yourself had brought "suggests" into play as what you meant with "shows",

No, not at all, I do not deny that I myself had introduced "suggests" as the expected meaning of "shows", *in that particular context*, where, by the way, you had wrongly assumed "proves" as the expected meaning of "shows".

and claim that my consideration of your statement with "suggests" replaced for "shows" was a distortion

Yes, it has been, indeed, a persistent distortion.

(supposedly to be misused for the sake of my argument).

Apparently yes, admittedly willing or unwilling.

That claim is baseless, given the above factuality. And it is not a matter of context either, because you expressed that in the given context you used the term "shows" expecting to mean "suggests".

Yes. I keep focusing on meaning and what I mean to say. You keep focusing on formal correctness of what I once said, of course, according to your linguistic criteria. Thus we are not actually communicating. Out of respect to Philip and because his suggestion is correct, I think it is time to finalize this exchange of views.

I have to add I had already posted the first of my comments above when I saw Janis' last comment (posted on the 28th) extending his hand (by the way I do extend mine too). I am sorry about that, this will be my last comment anyway.